Journal publisher boycotts (actual and proposed) and journal editorial board walk-outs (actual and proposed) have repeatedly been tried across the years, and have had very limited (if any) success (if the goal was to generate OA).<div>
<br></div>
<div>What is successful in generating OA is for researchers to self-archive their final drafts (Green OA) in their institutional repositories and for their institutions and funders to mandate that they do so.</div><div>
<br></div><div>The walk-out of the Journal of Library Administration (JLA) is an especially ill-considered step (if the goal was to generate OA). <a href="http://j.mp/YHsOQG">http://j.mp/YHsOQG</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Yes, it might succeed in getting the journal title to migrate to (or reconstitute with) a Gold OA publisher. </div><div><br></div><div>But, as noted below, it is also a slap in the face to Taylor & Francis (Routledge): Library and Information Science, United Kingdom, which has a Green (no embargo) policy for its 35 journals (the only T&F journals that are Green).</div>
<div><a href="http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=1134&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&la=en">http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php?id=1134&fIDnum=|&mode=simple&la=en</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>With Green OA self-archiving, JLA authors could have had 100% immediate-Green OA at no extra cost, and no risk of the journal going belly-up -- or migrating to a Gold Access publisher that authors would have to find the funds to pay to publish with (at a time when their institutions continue to have to pay their ongoing subscriptions to all other subscription journals they can afford).</div>
<div><br></div><div>So editorial board resignation or migration for the sake of OA is premature, short-sighted and indeed counter-productive today, especially when it punishes a Green publisher.</div><div><br></div><div>
Yet, at a single journal level, this is just a drop in the ocean, insofar as well-intentioned pro-OA strategies with perverse effects are concerned. </div><div><br></div><div>The jewel in this unenviable crown for futile and self-defeating pro-OA gestures is surely the Finch/RCUK policy, which has done more to promote Green OA embargoes than any other "pro-OA" gesture so far. </div>
<div><a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html">http://www.dlib.org/dlib/september12/harnad/09harnad.html</a></div><div><br></div><div>That ill-considered policy has, among other things, reinforced Elsevier's double-talk rights-retention policy, according to which Elsevier authors all retain the right to provide immediate un-embargoed Green OA -- but not if their institution or funder requires them to exercise that right ("you can if you wish, but not if you must"). <a href="http://elsevierconnect.com/what-do-the-new-uk-open-access-policies-mean-for-authors/">http://elsevierconnect.com/what-do-the-new-uk-open-access-policies-mean-for-authors/</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Of course, Elsevier's fork-tongued nonsense can safely be ignored by any sensible author (mandated or un-mandated).</div><div><br></div><div>But of course if authors were sensible, we wouldn't need Green OA mandates in the first place...</div>
<div><br></div><div>SH</div>
<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Hamaker, Charles <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cahamake@uncc.edu" target="_blank">cahamake@uncc.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
My mistake, Informa appears to be the umbrella organization for T&F:<br>
<a href="http://www.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/" target="_blank">http://www.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/</a><br>
<br>
Also, the policy on author posting might date from 2009<br>
Chuck Hamaker<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: <a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a> [<a href="mailto:goal-bounces@eprints.org" target="_blank">goal-bounces@eprints.org</a>] on behalf of Heather Morrison [<a href="mailto:hgmorris@sfu.ca" target="_blank">hgmorris@sfu.ca</a>]<br>
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 3:32 PM<br>
To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<br>
Subject: [GOAL] Informa.plc - Taylor and Francis no-embargo for LIS journals<br>
<br>
In response to a post on the mass resignation of the Journal of Library Administration, Informa.plc, the multinational conglomerate working under its scholar-friendly-sounding brand "Taylor & Francis", posted this note about self-archiving:<br>
<br>
"Under our LIS pilot program, authors can freely post their (“post-print”) manuscript immediately on publication – ie without any embargo."<br>
<br>
from:<br>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/journal-editorial-board-quits-over-open-access-principle-13086" target="_blank">https://theconversation.com/journal-editorial-board-quits-over-open-access-principle-13086</a><br>
<br>
Is there a connection? If other disciplines wish to remove embargoes to self-archiving, should they convince one of their journals to resign, too?<br>
<br>
best,<br>
<br>
Heather G. Morrison<br>
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics<br>
<a href="http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com</a><br></blockquote></div></div>